The tale of the census records

[Wayne Land]

The board has been a little quiet lately so here's a bit of information some of you might find interesting.

In the 1880 census, little Oliver Roberts is 1 year old and living in Arkansas and is reported to have been born in Arkansas to a father who was born in Texas and a mother who was born in Arkansas. OK, that's the real Oliver P. Roberts some folks believe was Brushy's true identity.

Unfortunately the 1890 census was destroyed by fire so fast forward to 1900. At that point he is 20 years old, still was born in Arkansas, father in Texas and mother in Arkansas.

Go to 1910 and he is 30 years old. But suddenly there's a change from previous census records. Now he reports he was born in Texas not Arkansas and his parents were both born in Kentucky. This apparent discrepancy actually agrees with what he told Morrison almost 40 years later. His parents were from Kentucky and he was born in Texas!! There's more.

Go to 1920, 1930 and 1940 and in all three he still says he was born in Texas not Arkansas! There is no question that the real Oliver P. Roberts was born in Arkansas. But most telling of all this is that in 1910, soon after I believe he stepped into the alias of Oliver Roberts, he says his parents were born in Kentucky!!

But this also shoots a hole in a previous theory of mine. If the person reported on that 1910 census was Brushy and not the real Oliver P. then Brushy was indeed using the alias of Oliver P Roberts and not Oliver L. Roberts. He is reported to be married to Anna and I had believed he was never married to Anna. For one thing he never said anything to Morrison about marrying her. I had believed the marriage to Anna White was by the real Oliver P. and that after the ugly, embarrasing divorce in 1910 he had disappeared with Brushy assuming his identity about that time. But, the man who reported his parents were born in Kentucky was living in the house with Anna at the time. Furthermore, the marriage to Anna occurred in 1909 meaning if this is indeed Brushy, he had to have returned to Texas earlier than I had theorized. This is somewhat conjecture.

Any ideas, answers?

[nmjames]

Wayne,

Here is what I have:

1880 Olover Roberts 1 born in Arkansas, Father Henry Roberts -Texas
Mother Elizabeth - Arkansas

1900 Oliver P. Roberts 21 born in Arkansas, Father Henry O. Roberts - Texas, Sarah Roberts
born in Arkansas (Thomas U. Roberts 15 born in Texas. ) (Sarah Elizabeth Roberts mother's full name.)

1910 Oliver P. Roberts age 30y Born in Texas. Anna Roberts F 22y born in Texas I also have
Anna Lee, Married O.P. Roberts 7/11/1909. On 08/21/1912 Mollie Brown married Oliver Roberts. (You have Anna White on your post. ) This is the only census I see where Robert's uses Kentucky for his parents. ( His name is Oliver P. Roberts on the 1910 Census however.)

1920 Olliver P. Roberts age 41, b. Texas, Father's birthplace, Texas Mother's birthplace Arkansas.

1930 Oliver Roberts 52 years old, b. Texas Father's birthplace Texas, Mother's birthplace Arkansas. Lutisha Roberts f. 57 b. Missouri. (Notice their Oliver's age and Lutisha's age)


1940 Ollie Roberts 70 years old. b. Texas. He is married to Louticia Roberts F. 65 Missouri. .
Notice in 1930 Roberts is 52 and Lutisha Roberts is 57. Roberts is younger than Lutisha. Lutisha's birth is almost all ways listed at being 1875. Roberts would have been born about 1870 by this census. Still a long way from 1859. (Also on the 1940 Census the spelling is Louticia, She died in on June 22, 1944 as Luticia (Ballard) Roberts.

[Wayne Land]

I suspect the discrepancy on Anna's name is that her middle name was Lee and her maiden name was White. Could be wrong but that's what I think.

So what is your thinking on why Oliver P. Roberts claimed Texas as his birthplace from 1910 on, when in fact, he was actually born in Arkansas?

And why would he report Kentucky as his parents' birthplace on that one census when they were in fact born in Texas and Arkansas?

[Wayne Land]

Oh yes, one more thing to share on this topic. In the 1940 census he was asked if he had served in the military and he said yes. Which war? The Spanish American War! We all know he also reported in his interviews with Morrison that he had fought in that war. I'm going to see if I can find any record of Oliver Pleasant Roberts being a member of the rough riders.

[nmjames]

On the Van Zandt marriages, it has her listed as Anna Lee bride. groom as O.P. Roberts and the date 07-11-1909.

Mollie Brown married Oliver on 08-21-1912.

Mattie Couch married Tom Roberts on 10-04-1908.

I can't tell you why he would report Kentucky but it is on the Census. However in Morrison's
book I find the following on page 57.

I went back to Mexico about 1907 and three of us started another ranch............. In 1910 the revolution came along, and we had to start fighting again............ We left Mexico in 1914, coming across the border at Brownsville, Texas.

However just below this on the same page, he states "In 1912 I met Mollie Brown of Coleman, Texas ......................... Then he sates "Molly died in 1919. I married Louticia Ballard in 1925. (In 1930 the her name is Lutisha and at her death, it's Luticia.)

[Wayne Land]

I've searched several sources of information on the roster of soldiers with the Rough Riders and I find no Oliver Roberts listed anywhere. There's no William Henry Roberts either but there is a William J. Robert (could be Brushy with a different middle initial - we know he had a habit of changing his middle initial as in Oliver P. vs. Oliver L.) But I can't imagine why if the real Oliver P. Roberts was in that war that he wouldn't have used his real name?

And I still wonder why he, Oliver Pleasant, would claim Texas as his birthplace in all the census records from 1910 on. He had to have known his real birth state was Arkansas. I'm just saying.

Oh yes. As for the conflict in the years 1907 to 1914, I think Brushy was augmenting his heroism in battle by making some claims that weren't all true. As I've stated before, I think we can recognize he didn't tell "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" without our automatically assuming the only alternative was to lie about everything including his true identity.

[Wayne Land]

I may need to clarify the point I was trying to make in the previous post. I'm saying Brushy was with the Rough Riders. He had the medallion to prove it and in the 1940 census he reported he had served in the Spanish American war. If he really was Oliver Pleasant Roberts, why wouldn't that name be among the roster of soldiers with the Rough Riders? Oliver P. Roberts would have had no reason to try to use an alias. Billy The Kid, on the other hand, would have been hiding his real name, possibly by just changing the middle initial and changing Roberts to Robert.

The real Oliver P. Roberts was born in Arkansas and he would have known that and said so to the census takers. His parents were from Texas and Arkansas and he would have known that as well. He wouldn't have said Kentucky and then claimed he was born in Texas.

These are obvious facts that lend credence to Brushy's claim.

[Wayne Land]

Brett Hall's book "The Real Billy The Kid - Alias Brushy Bill Roberts" contains a footnote #171 that describes the military record of one William H. Roberts of Texas as a member of Troop L of the Rough Riders and says he was assigned to train horses. I've never been able to find this record anywhere and even though I asked Brett to help me, he never got back to me with where to see it. Some have suggested his statements regarding such a record are fictitious. Well! I just found a copy of a record showing a William "G" Roberts of the Texas Cavalry in Troop L. If you use a little imagination that "G" could have been an unusual way of writing the letter "H". Thought I'd share what I found. What do some of you think? Could that middle initial be an unusual "H"?

I'll tell you this much for certain. There is no record of an Oliver Roberts in the Spanish American War with or without the middle initial "P" or any other initial.

Attachments:

[Wayne Land]

I have another possible explanation of how it all happened. Brace yourself, it's pretty far removed from what I've always thought before. I'm starting to see things that were always there and open my mind to other interpretations. I noticed how the listing in the 1880 census of 1 year old Oliver does not include the middle initial even though middle initials are used elsewhere by that census taker. I also noticed that the little guy's name is spelled with two "O"'s as in Olover. Then I noticed something new. In that same neighborhood just one page away is a family with the last name of "Olover." Also spelled with two O's. Is this a coincidence? Was that family's name also misspelled? Or is their another possibility?

Then I remembered there is no 1890 census available. Can we assume that since there was an Olover Roberts 1 year old in 1880 living with parents Henry and Elizabeth and also an Oliver P. Roberts, 20 years old in the same household in 1900 that these two are one and the same?

I've heard it said the Roberts family claimed "Olover" ran away from home as a teen and got killed around 1894. Whether his middle name was "Pleasant" or not, without seeing the 1890 census we really can not assume he was with his family in 1890, let alone 1894.

All that said, I just realized I could be all wrong about the timing. It is possible that the Oliver P. Roberts showing on the 1900 census, living with his family, was indeed our Brushy who had, upon his recent return from the Spanish American War, assumed the identity of the missing Olover.

All these years I've been trying to insist Brushy never used the middle initial "P" when in fact there is no proof that the "Olover" born in 1879 ever had that middle name.

Just some thoughts. I really need to continue studying this possibility though. Maybe someone out there can shoot holes in this theory. I appreciate any and all help trying to figure this out.

[nmjames]

Wayne,

In Morrison's book on page 60, it is stated that Brushy spent all his mature life as one of his own relatives. This was the real Ollie Roberts, a cousin, who was born in 1867, ran away from home about 1884 (not 1894), and was killed in the Indian Territory.........

Olover was born in 1879. In 1884, he would have been four or five. I don't think he would have run away from home. If he were killed in 1894 he would have only been 15 years
old.

[Wayne Land]

Yes, I know. That's why I've always felt that the Oliver whose identity Brushy had taken was not Oliver Pleasant, born in 1879 but that there had to be another cousin Oliver born earlier. This is also supported by the original Brushy headstone which showed he was born in 1868. But now I'm trying to make sense of why Oliver Roberts would report in the 1910 census that he was born in Texas and his parents were born in Kentucky.

[lacowboy]

The link below list a W. H. Roberts 10th Calvary troop D. Could be him there. I've tried to verify, but the guy didn't respond. I believe I got no response because the Roberts listed was a white guy. Just my opinion.
www.lwfaam.net/sa/10th_saw.htm

[Billy the Kid is my hero]

Oh boy...this debate is going to go on for a long time...

[jsaunders]

I want to respond to this as an experienced genealogy/census reader I can tell you first off no one realizes that census records are flawed in some way. It is very hatdvto determine weather/which records are accurate as it is known that census takers are prone to making mistakes. Also there is no way to tell who gave the information to the taker. After many years of family research I can verify that not one record of my family was completely accurate and changed with each recording. Mispelled names, inaccurate and changing places of birth are all common. I doubt very seriously that Brushy Bill ever gave information to a census taker. Usually it was whomever was home when the taker came by. Also it is common to have entire families missing from one record to another. In the time period of the late 1800's there are many families that avoided the takers especially if they had Indian decent as the feared being counted as Indian. Also unless you have spent the time to review each of the actual record you will never find what you are looking for. These online printed records like you find on GenWeb or Ancestry are transcribed by humans. They have to read each record and decide due to bad handwritting in most cases just what it is the taker was writing. I fiund lost famiky member s simply by reading the actual reco rds myself and doing my own deciphering. Ancestry has the actual handwritten records for viewing as you are researching. It is very important to read them for yourself. It is time consuming but the rewards are many. So unless or until someone can say I have done a complete and accurate search for all the information giving by

[jsaunders]

Brushy Bill then you can't rule out that he was telling the truth. Cemetary records are flawed also because there are many unmarked graves from an era where ppl were poor and usually marked graves with a stick that is ling gone now. I have many missing relatives whose graves have never been located. I have goid ideas where they should be buried and can only guess that one of the many unmarked graves are them. In the 1800's they did not keep burial records. In fact many family members were buried on their own property. Most cemetaries will list the number of unmarked graves. For all these reasons I believe that this part of Brushy's story may never be proven and can never be disproven.